Phone Activated Before Purchase Date, Buyer Charged Twice For Handling, Chandigarh State Commission Holds Oneplus, Flipkart and Seller Liable
The State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, U.T. Chandigarh bench comprising Preetinder Singh (Member) held Flipkart, Oneplus, Oneplus's Service Centre and its seller liable for selling a defective Oneplus mobile handset which was activated way before its purchase date. The State Commission also held Flipkart liable for issuing separate bills on the pretext of double charging for...
The State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, U.T. Chandigarh bench comprising Preetinder Singh (Member) held Flipkart, Oneplus, Oneplus's Service Centre and its seller liable for selling a defective Oneplus mobile handset which was activated way before its purchase date. The State Commission also held Flipkart liable for issuing separate bills on the pretext of double charging for the handling fee, which amounted to 'dark patterns' as per the Central Consumer Protection Authority's notification.
Brief Facts:
Mr Ashwani Chawla (“Complainant”) purchased a OnePlus 11R 5G (Sonic Black, 256 GB) mobile handset from Flipkart on July 17, 2023. Two separate bills were issued on the pretext of offering a handling fee. The handset experienced malfunctioning issues from the beginning, such as hanging when opening the camera application and rapid battery drainage. The Complainant sought assistance from Oneplus's service centre on August 8, 2023, where it was revealed that the handset was activated on March 2, 2023, according to their online mobile data system, contradicting the purchase date. They declined the repair services and directed the Complainant to contact the manufacturer, seller, and Flipkart. Despite reaching out to the aforementioned authorities, no resolution was provided.
Feeling aggrieved, the Complainant filed a consumer complaint in the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, U.T. Chandigarh (“State Commission”). The seller, Oneplus and its manufacturer failed to appear before the State Commission. Therefore, they were proceeded against ex-parte.
Flipkart appeared and contended that it acted as a mere online intermediary and was not responsible for the quality and contents of the product. It asserted that the Complainant used the mobile phone without any issue for around 21 days after purchase, indicating that there was no initial problem with the product.
Observations of the Commission:
The State Commission found merit in the argument presented by the Complainant that the sale of a damaged and used product under the pretext of a brand new one constitutes deceptive practices. Evidence indicated that the product received was activated on a date before the purchase, indicating it was not new. The State Commission noted the Complainant's efforts to seek remedy, which were unaddressed by the Opposite Parties, indicating their disregard for customer grievances in favour of profit-making.
Furthermore, the State Commission found that the billing practices of Flipkart amounted to double charging, which they deemed unfair. They also referenced guidelines for the prevention and regulation of "dark patterns," indicating that Flipkart engaged in practices designed to mislead consumers. Despite Flipkart's argument that they were only a platform facilitating transactions, the State Commission held it responsible.
In conclusion, the State Commission ordered Flipkart, Oneplus, its service centre and the seller to refund the purchase price and handling fee to the Complainant. They were also directed to pay Rs. 10,000/- as compensation and Rs. 10,000/- for legal costs to the Complainant.